Patna High Court: Co-Related Duty Imposed On Court To Show Mutual Respect To Other Institution As Judicial Restraint Is Imperative For Administration Of Justice
The Patna High Court remarked that reputation is one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be taken away lightly in the garb of deciding a case.
Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, Justice Partha Sarthy, Patna High Court
The Patna High Court emphasised that there is a co-related duty imposed upon a Court to show mutual respect to the other Institution as judicial restraint is imperative for an administration of justice.
The Court emphasised thus in Letters Patent Appeals in which the issue was related to the appointment of a Deputy Registrar in a University.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed, “There is a co-related duty imposed upon a Court to show mutual respect to the other Institution as judicial restraint and discipline is imperative for an orderly administration of justice. … The majesty of the Court would be enhanced only when even the Superior Courts do not allow themselves, even momentarily, the latitude of ignoring judicial precaution and propriety.”
The Bench remarked that reputation is one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be taken away lightly in the garb of deciding a case.
Brief Facts
One Kumari Anjana was appointed as a CDPO in the Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, on which post she joined in 2000 in the pay-scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-. After 13 years of service, she was granted the first ACP (Assured Career Progression) in PB-2, Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/-. She had thereafter applied against an advertisement of Aryabhatta Knowledge University (AKU), Patna for one of the non-teaching posts of Deputy Registrar in the University. The minimum qualification in the advertisement for the post of Deputy Registrar was either nine years’ experience as Assistant Professor in the Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 6,000/- with experience in educational administration or comparable experience in any other Institute of Higher Education/Research Establishment; or five years of administrative experience as Assistant Registrar; or an equivalent post; which minimum condition could be relaxed on the recommendation of the Screening/Selection Committee.
She was considered and appointed as Deputy Registrar, on which post she joined as a Deputationist, retaining her lien on the substantive post of CDPO in the Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar. Later, she was confirmed in the University service sometimes in the year 2014. Thereafter, she had resigned from the substantive post of CDPO in the year 2017, but the same was accepted from an anterior date of her initial appointment as Deputy Registrar. It was her case before the Single Judge that her appointment and confirmation on the post passed the muster of the audit. The matter was then placed before the Chancellor, who concluded that though she met the academic standards for being appointed on the post, she lacked necessary advertised experience for the same. The Single Judge concluded that the Chancellor’s order was ante-dated. Hence, the case was before the Division Bench.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “A Judge exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be free to express his mind in the exposition of the case before him. Such expressions of a Judge in a case would depend on various factors, eg., his inherent reaction to the facts of the case or his, may be, felicity of expression.”
The Court noted that judicial function cannot be discharged effectively, if a Judge were to conform to any particular expression which has to have the approval of the higher/Appellate Court, but in the event of a complaint against any unmerited and undeserved comment, the same is required to be addressed by the Appellate Court.
“In that case, the Appellate Court may consider expunction of the remarks but not without citing that the observations made are not justified or are wholly wrong or improper, factually or otherwise. Impertinent, en-passant remarks, which in a way castigates or stigmatizes, must be eschewed as part of self-imposed duty of a Judge”, it added.
The Court was of the view that for holding that the order passed by the Chancellor was ante-dated, more proof than merely a later date of communication of the order, was required.
“Though in the body of the judgment impugned, it appears that the Judicial Officer on deputation and another Officer in the Hon’ble Chancellor’s Office were called on one occasion but such summoning for clarification would not suffice or make up for an opportunity of hearing for placing their version on record for the learned Single Judge to have concluded that the officers misled the Hon’ble Chancellor and that correctional steps are required to be taken or that the office of the Hon’ble Chancellor had become dysfunctional”, it further observed.
The Court reiterated that such off-the-cuff observations were not required as it was not necessary to be dealt with by the Single Judge for deciding the correctness of the decision of the Chancellor in holding that Kumari Anjana did not meet the experience requirement for being appointed as Deputy Registrar of the University.
“Once we hold that such observations were absolutely uncalled for and that also without confronting the Judicial Officer or the Officer in the Hon’ble Chancellor’s Office with such concluded finding of the Court, such observations would fall in the category of unmerited, undeserved and uncharitable remarks, which ought not to be retained in the judgment in larger public interest”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that nothing in the Judgment in such paragraphs shall be considered as a finding against the Institution and the Officers and that such comments would also not percolate in the ACR of the Officer in the Chancellor’s office as also of the Judicial Officer.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Appeals.
Cause Title- Balendra Shukla v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No.263 of 2025)
Appearance:
Advocate General P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate K.N. Singh, AAG Sarvesh Kumar Singh, ACs Abhinav Alok, Ravi Kumar, Advocates Surya Nilambari, Rajendra Giri, Aditya Sahay, Ankita Kumari, Md. Fazle Kari, Bindhayachal Rai, Sanjiv Kumar, Ashar Mustafa, R.K. Giri, Amish Kumar, and Rajiv Ranjan Kr. Pandey.
